frogspawner

It IS back up! Hurrah! :happy: Well, you get a tedious message and have to click on the "do-what-I-just-told-you-to-do-and-shut-up-you-stupid-machine" option once or twice, but we're used to that aren't we?

Ah, the hardest work is resisting the temptation to rewite the spells completely! But it is useful to have the original text there, changes annotated, for comparison purposes. While we're on the subect of d20 Conversion - has anyone done converted versions of the d20 Feats (i.e. warriors special 'magic') ?

A laudable goal. But I think your efforts would be better spent finding a magic system that used d20 spells without having to convert them. My attempt at such a Magic System is here. And my (slightly tweaked, not massively converted) take on the AD&D spells are here. (The original text is mostly there, struck out if deleted. My changes are added in italics, so you can tell how much has changed, or rather how little. And my comments on the changes, if any, are added in square brackets at the end of each spell.). Another laudable activity! Your system looks good and simple. I like the separate skills per school (though I don't use that myself, I might be persuaded...). One problem with my system is a lack of compatibility - it doesn't use POW in the BRP sense (you gain more power points according to Magic skill instead). Presumably your system uses POW. But do you find that allows Mages to cast enough spells? It looks to me like GORE hasn't translated many spells at all. Am I missing something? Magic Missile, Sleep and Fireball are the absolute classic D&D spells - and it doesn't appear to have them ('Summon Fire' is a very pale attempt at Fireball, if that's what is intended). That's rather a cop-out, I'm afraid. The acid-test of a converted system would be how it handles them, I'd say.

That "Other Place" could well be the Mongoose RQ Forum. I think I posted one such list there, and others did too, back in those bad old days before there was a better forum to visit... "Haven't played"... that's tragic! Me too, though. I've never dared play my NG even though (or maybe partly because) the units are quite scrappy. That's why I started to knock up this Java program that lets you play these games on-line... WebHex (a bit like Cyberboard, though I like to think the definition files are easier to set up). PS: Maybe we should invent a similar-style wargame for SharedWorld...?

Not too limiting at all. Five traits selected from the full list is plenty to define the philosophy of someone's 'family line', if you need such a thing. BRP Fate Points work in the way I outlined, which isn't compatible with the GM handing them out. I'm sure someone would be happy to tell you the details, so you don't have to make do with some other system :shocked: until your BRP arrives.

Yes, Cautious should be reserved for the positive-sounding opposite of Brave. Impulsive is a good one, it'll probably replace Dynamic on my "Precise / Dynamic (Fussy/Careless)" scale, but I still prefer Precise to Planned (though I feel there could be something better still out there, and I can't be bothered to fetch the thesaurus... ). And, yes, Flexible is better than Receptive, thanks.

That's rather like the Harn system, isn't it? Can't say I'm keen. Nah, don't like that - you were trying to roll low! Yeah, like that - much better! I presume that should read roll ">" skill for increase rolls. But then, since everything else is rather non-standard, maybe not...

I guess you're right, including that sort of rules-tweaking and campaign details like Sandy Petersen's Mysticism mentioned above by TRose - for those who want an oriental flavour, at least. As for other MA advantages, I see no reason why there couldn't be Martial Arts style specialisms in any skill, not just combat skills. Although they wouldn't be 'martial', so you'd probably want to call them something like "Ki" skills (as in the Land of Ninja book, I'm reliably informed ). If a normal skill-roll was under the MA/Ki(<anyskill>) percentage, it'd give that skill's Special effect (a bit like MA does for combat skills). For those wanting the more highly magical (wuxia?) style, maybe spending PP could give a Critical effect (or when you really need to guarantee that Special), like the Fate Points mechanism. Some GM's may even allow spending POW (or many PP?) to gain some magic-like "super-critical" effect. Details to follow, in the forthcoming Martial Arts Supplement, perhaps...

Nice idea, but BRP Fate Points aren't the GM's to give (they are the Power Points you already have, just called Fate Points when spent in certain ways). See what you think of my mechanism, below, which may bend but hopefully doesn't break the BRP rules... Spookily close to a system I've just adopted! I defined, yes, five traits as "Virtues" for each religion/philosophy/whatever. Priests get minor benefits if they cultivate them; exemplary religious warriors (like RuneLords) get better benefits but have to stick to all of them, and more rigidly. Other characters can have them (one or two player-picked ones, but could be according to culture, if you like) and so are encouraged to play their chosen persona, because Virtues bring their own reward: Make a "trait-roll" and a relevant skill is doubled for one attempt, in a suitable situation. I've translated each trait into skill-like terms, and the players seem to understand and like it better. e.g. "Brave/Cowardly 70/30" would become "Brave 20%". That is, the amount above the 50% norm is the 'skill' percentage. The "trait skills" can gain increases as usual, except that when one has a tick (i.e. a skill-check against it) it can't be used until the increase roll is attempted (to stop them being used all the time!).

Some terms are rather 'loaded', so I've tried to come up with pairs that both sound good (and with negative interpretations of each, too): 1. Brave / Cautious (Foolhardy/Cowardly) : Willingness to face danger for the sake of victory / Avoidance and fear of dangers. 2. Chaste / Lusty (Repressed/Lustful) : Faithful to cultural mores in sexual relations / Excess sexual desire and activity without commitment. 3. Diligent / Relaxed (Manic/Lazy) : Works hard and applies to the task at hand / Avoids work or tedium and prefers to sit around. 4. Forgiving / Forceful (Apologist/Vengeful) : Ignores insults, injuries and bad comments / Seeks revenge for all slights, real or imagined. 5. Generous / Conservative (Squandering/Selfish) : Shares and frequently gives gifts / Desires to accumulate material wealth for themselves. 6. Honest / Cunning (Unimaginitive/Deceitful) : Truthful and reliable despite negative consequences / Distorts the truth to their advantage. 7. Modest / Proud (Meek/Vain) : Seeks no glory or recognition for their deeds / Boastful and self-satisfied, likes to hear about themselves. 8. Just / Arbitrary (Judgmental/Illogical) : Tells right from wrong, judging impartially / Makes decisions emotionally, using irrelevancies. 9. Trusting / Skeptical (Gullible/Suspicious) : Friendly and believes what they are told / Unfriendly and distrustful of what anyone says. 10. Merciful / Ruthless (Pitiful/Cruel) : Willing to help the weak, poor and even enemies / Unconcerned for feelings or pain of others. 11. Pious / Worldly (Sanctimonious/Blasphemous) : Concerned by spiritual implications / Cares only for the mundane and disrespects gods. 12. Temperate / Indulgent (Restricted/Greedy) : Takes only minimal food and drink / Enjoys excess food, drink and other delights. 13. Cheerful / Earnest (Frivolous/Gloomy) : Happy and generally jocular, given to pranks / Serious and often grim-faced, devoted to causes. 14. Talkative / Taciturn (Verbose/Brusque) : Outgoing and loquacious, talks legs off donkeys / Introverted and tight-lipped, using few words. 15. Optimistic / Pessimistic (Overconfident/Hopeless) : Believes outcomes will be good / Believes outcomes will be bad. 16. Enquiring / Reserved (Prurient/Uncaring) : Takes interest in details, even of others' business / Remains aloof from others, ignores details. 17. Courteous / Candid (Unctuous/Rude) : Polite, considerate and wary of upsetting others / Unafraid to cause offence with words or deeds. 18. Precise / Dynamic (Fussy/Careless) : Makes painstaking and detailed plans / Proceeds quickly without much preparation. 19. Some Other Trait (e.g. Aggressive/Passive, Stubborn/Receptive, Physical/Mental, Emotional/Calm, Leader/Follower, Witty/Dull, Dependable/Unreliable, Innovative/Conservative, etc.) I also think explanations are needed, or they're prone to misinterpretation.

I haven't tried them but they look interesting, the various animal-named martial arts styles seem quite oriental in flavour. A bit rules-heavy, though - extra-special effects defined for every skill that could be adopted! And some odd things in it - e.g. creating magic items costing skill%-points? Also it seems based on a single MA skill, rather than the BRP version which has specialisms per weapon (i.e. Martial Arts(Fist), Martial Arts(Sword), etc). Anyway, I'm not convinced an MA supplement is necessary. The existing BRP rules can probably be interpreted to do the job. Related question: BRP MA skill gives double damage dice when attacking (like an impale), but shouldn't there also be some sort of benefit when parrying?

No compromise! Using a system you know to be inferior would take the edge off your enthusiasm for whatever you do, and risk failure. And maybe your conscience would prick you into converting later anyway. It'd be that way for me... So stick with the best. I heartily recommend you persevere with BRP.

Yes, just my little joke - sorry! Don't get me wrong. If a system is good, or has good parts, I'll say so. Or bad. Be they BRP or even MRQ... Of course it isn't, you are right. I suspect he just says stuff like this to cause confusion. That does sound good. I'll give it a proper look, sometime. Nice! Oh dear, NOT "The Way it was Meant to Be", I'd say! Still, maybe it can be fixed (simply "minimum 1pp", perhaps?).

Similarities, certainly. I was questioning peterb's assertion that: I don't know the (M?)RQ Companion, is it just Ship rules that are 'paraphrased'? I wouldn't call that 'large parts' - so is there anything else? Um, I must say I'd much have preferred Chaosium to keep RQ. But better Mongoose than Wizards, agreed!

BRP0's sample Galactic Knight has Energy Sword 150%, Martial Arts (in Energy Sword, presumably) 80%, and various psychic abilities you might expect. The rules say a "cinematic" campaign can allow missile-weapon parries, as "extraordinarily rare combat feats", at full skill if they first make an Agility roll. There's no mechanic I can see for targeting parried laser-bolts, though... So I'd suggest allowing further "special abilities" to be chosen for every, say, 50% of Martial Arts - and that sort of fancy parrying could be one such special ability. Would that do?

Sorry, I only use the RQ2 version...

Really? I've only seen the MRQ SRD, but that differs significantly from good old RQ2/3.

Yes, same here! One d3 per increment is so much nicer than d4+1 every other... and it would be a bit too vicious without a 'saving throw' of some kind. But this is unrepresentative. Most spells need virtually no changes and the conversion is not too much of a problem.

In good old RuneQuest it was a kind of spiritual thing - through adventuring (questing) you strove to improve yourself, in skill and holiness, in order to emulate your god and thus attune yourself with the Runes (primal natural principles) they embodied. Mongoose failed to see that, and insensitively turned Runes into just another magic treasure to be looted off the dead bodies of the monsters/victims, D&D-style. Pah.

Perhaps a Bronto Stomp could be interpreted as a "Sweep" attack, just in a different direction from normal. BRP0 would then say parrying it was possible, if a STRvDamage roll was made, which, if successful, would stop the blow and save any further (shorter?) people in the area. Seems about right to me...

But AikiGhost's "d100 Rules System" (linked upthread) uses characteristics in the 1-100 range. It doesn't seem right that a system even more d100 than usual would be excluded. Instead of drawing up regulations dividing (perhaps only slightly different) rules-sets, I'd rather efforts were spent uniting them. Devising mechanisms as easy as possible to convert between systems would be a better use of our time. Obviously starting with conversions to BRP, because they should be the most used...

Cobblers, as usual, Rosie. PS: I bet you can't resist having the last word...

:eek: Good God, man! Listen to yourself - you're arguing in favour of D&D! Snap out of it! Snap out of it!

Oh, not including Mongoose after all, then?

I thought badcat's point was he didn't want players to have such fine control over character generation. From that pov, you're saying "BRP is no better a system for building characters than D&D/D20" - which doesn't sound nearly so good. And surely some mistake? BRP is always better!